April 20, 2014, 07:44:04 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - KyleSTL

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 27
61
Canon General / Re: EF 800 f/5.6L IS II [CR2]
« on: September 03, 2013, 11:24:07 AM »
Updating the lens after 5 years? That would be quick. Is having a superior 800mm lens that important to Canon?
Well, you could look at it that way. 

Or you could be excited by the fact that this quick replacement means that Canon has yet again exceeded its own high bar.  The original 800mm was sharper than the 600mm IS + 1.4x.  Now that the 600mm IS II + 1.4x  is sharper than the 800mm, not to mention lighter and has better IS.  Currently there is absolutely no reason to buy the 800mm, since better IQ and greater versatility can be had with the 600mm and 1.4x III (for almost identical prices).  Canon knows this and will update the 800mm accordingly. 

I know only a very small minority will ever own or use this lenses, but it certainly shows Canon is able to surpass itself in a very short amount of time, and that should make all of us happy (except for the climbing retail prices on these new items).

62
Lenses / Re: A Big Lens Announcement in September? [CR1]
« on: August 30, 2013, 08:45:31 AM »
I can't remember how many times we've gone over this on this forum, but I'll present it again:

There is no size advantage for an EF-S telephoto lens

In the telephoto lens design the only two factors that will determine size are -
1) Focal length (e.g. 300mm), or longest focal length in the case of zooms
2) Aperture (e.g. f/4), or aperture at the longest focal length in the case of zooms

A 300mm f/4 lens, regardless of the sensor size for which is was design, will always have an objective (read: front) element of at least 75mm (math: 300/4=75), a 70-200mm f/2.8 will always have an objective of at least 72mm.  Now, having said that, they might be able to make some of the internal elements slightly smaller, or the overall length slightly shorter, but you will never decrease the size of the objective element.

Sigma and Tamron made APS-C f/2.8 telephoto zooms, but they have the same effective focal lengths as their full frame equivalents, not the same absolute focal lengths.  That is the only thing that gives those lenses a size advantage.

63
Lenses / Re: A Big Lens Announcement in September? [CR1]
« on: August 29, 2013, 08:51:42 AM »
replacement for the version II of the 300, 400, 500, and 600 with built-in 1.4 convertors (like the 200-400).  Of course the price would jump by $2,000 per lens (ouch!)
Man, you are optimistic on price.  Anyway, as the 200mm f/2L IS and 800mm f/5.6L IS look like bargains now in the supertele line, I'd bet on both of those being replaced with all the modern improvements of the other version II lenses, a matching paint color (those last-generation lenses look so outdated with different paint color /sarcasm) and an 'updated' MSRP. 

Also good possibilities (only in the 'big' news realm):
45mm TS-E L and 90mm TS-E L
300mm f/4L IS replacement and 400mm f/5.6L IS

Then again, who predicted that Canon would replace the 15mm Fisheye with an 8-15mm zoom?  Maybe we are all thinking a bit too much inside the box.

64
EOS Bodies / Re: Viewfinder Specifications
« on: August 24, 2013, 12:00:53 PM »
I see what you are saying, maybe I'm using the wrong term.  Let me try to explain what I'm attempting to figure out.  When I look through the VF of my 5D, the focusing screen is fairly large, but it in no way fills my entire field of view (i.e. I can still see the black frame around the focusing screen and the eyepiece without moving my eye).  With a very high quality microscope, telescope or binoculars when you put your eye up to the eyepiece it seems to fill your entire field of view (very little preceived black area around the projected image).

You mean that black area where useful stuff like exposure information is displayed?
Oh, neuro, your sarcasm is always entertaining. But seriously, you of all people (as a scientist) must know what looking through a good Nikon or Leica microscope and how the image fills your entire field of vision. I obviously know that the shooting information needs to be displayed, but I'm sure when you look through the viewfinder of your full frame cameras you can easily see the frame of the eyepiece as well. I'm not in any way complaining about the viewfinder of my 5D, but just wondering if there in any way an SLR could replicate the 'immersive' experience of a high quality eyepiece from a telescope, microscope or binoculars.

65
EOS Bodies / Re: Viewfinder Specifications
« on: August 23, 2013, 05:47:18 PM »
I see what you are saying, maybe I'm using the wrong term.  Let me try to explain what I'm attempting to figure out.  When I look through the VF of my 5D, the focusing screen is fairly large, but it in no way fills my entire field of view (i.e. I can still see the black frame around the focusing screen and the eyepiece without moving my eye).  With a very high quality microscope, telescope or binoculars when you put your eye up to the eyepiece it seems to fill your entire field of view (very little preceived black area around the projected image).

Now, this morning I measured the actual opening through which you look on my 5D, and the opening is approximately 15mm x 10mm.  On an XSi (had one sitting on my desk) the viewfinder opening is much smaller, about 11mm x 8mm (and has rounded corners). 

One other observation I had is that if you place the viewfinder to your eye and focus on the center AF point and slowly move the camera away, the AF point appears the same size, regardless of the distance between your eye and the VF.  So, in essence I guess what I'm asking would be the product of eye relief and magnification.  I have no experience with MF cameras, does anyone with experience with MF cameras know how format effects how much of your perceived field of view is filled with the viewfinder?

Does anyone know what is preventing camera manufacturers from producing VF with magnification as large as the manual focus cameras of yesteryear (other than probably R&D development costs and non-existent ROI)?  Example:

Pentax MX - 0.97x / 95 % / 1.0x crop = 0.92 (best 35mm format MF viewfinder I know of)
Nikkormat EL2/FT3 - 0.90x / 92% / 1.0x crop = 0.83 (entry-level Nikon circa 1977)
Canon AE-1 - 0.86x / 96% / 1.0x crop = 0.83
Olympus OM-4T - 0.84x / 97% / 1.0x crop = 0.81
Nikon F/F2/F3 - 0.80x / 100% / 1.0x crop = 0.80

Also, it appears that a larger eye relief could be acheived by using slightly larger lenses in the VF and a larger opening (say, a 18mm x 12mm or 21mm x 14mm eyepiece).  Anyone know the opening size for the higher eye relief cameras (and/or higher magnification)?
Canon 1D X - 0.76x / 100% / 1.0x crop = 0.76 (best 35mm format AF viewfinder ever)

66
EOS Bodies / Viewfinder Specifications
« on: August 22, 2013, 04:14:19 PM »
I know the typical ratings for an optical viewfinder (maginification, accuracy and sensor format) are readily available for most cameras, and often, if you dig deep enough you can even find the eye relief rating for a viewfinder.  Does anyone know why there isn't any rating for any camera (that I can think of) for apparent field of view (similar to telescopes, binoculars or microscopes)?  Anyone who has looked through the eyepiece for a high-quality microscope or telescope knows what I'm talking about.  Does anyone know what the AFOV would be for your average camera VF?

Primer on binocular FOV:
http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/how_to/guide/binoculars/basic/basic_08.htm

67
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot S120 Announced
« on: August 22, 2013, 11:58:40 AM »
One thing I noticed about this, the SX510 and SX170 was the battery announced with them:

S90 - NB-6L
S95 - NB-6L
S100 - NB-5L
S110 - NB-5L
S120 - NB-6LH (a high-capacity NB-6L)

So anyone upgrading from S100 or S110 cannot use any additional batteries or chargers, however, anyone with an S90 or S95 has compatibility.  The question is, how much larger will the capacity be over the existing NB-6L (1000 mAh, 3.7V)?  My guess would be around 1200 mAh (slightly larger than the NB-5L - 1120mAh).

68
PowerShot / Re: PowerShot Announcements Tonight [CR3]
« on: August 21, 2013, 04:10:31 PM »
1080p60?  Where is this in the DSLR line?  9.4 FPS for the S120 and 9.3 for the G16?  Again, all but the 1D X cannot touch that.  Clearly processing power is not the issue at this point, market segmentation is. 

I saw that photorumors also said to expect an S200 camera, which appears to be a notch below the S120, but they did not specify how large the 10MP CCD sensor would be (probably 1/2.3", I'm guessing, unless they are recycling the S90/S95 sensor).

69
Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 20, 2013, 11:39:30 AM »
I suppose I mean shorter, I guess.

I'm looking at Mamiya Press and other Rangefinder 6x9 systems.

I think if Canon opts to use a rangefinder-style MF system with wide-adapters for EF lenses and EVF, it would have a winner.

Such a rangefinder-style MF would then be a competitor not only to existing MF systems, but also to Canon's own 1DX line and Nikon's D4.

===

Of course, the big question is whether or not Canon would be able to produce an economical 6x4.5, 6x7, or even 6x9 sensor.
Ah, I see what you are saying, but your thinking is backwards.

The Metabones wide adapter only works by making the image circle smaller with a higher intensity of light per unit area of image sensor plane (i.e. FF -> APS-C), hence the aperture advantage of 0.7x.  A tele-converter (like Canon's 1.4x and 2x) works by enlarging the image circle to increase the 'reach' of a lens which inherently has an aperture penalty equivalent to its focal length multiplier.

In theory (depending on the native flange distance of the proposed Canon MF system), Canon could produce an adapter to use their MF lenses on FF DSLRs with an aperture advantage.  I doubt Canon would produce a teleconverter to enlarge the image circle for FF lenses to fill a MF image sensor.

70
Canon General / Re: More Medium Format Talk [CR1]
« on: August 19, 2013, 06:58:18 PM »
Maybe we are going to have the equivalent of metabones to adapt L lenses on the canon medium format...
As for the bodies; if Canon opts to buy Phase-One or some other producer, it can easily inherit that company's existing line of lenses. If the body system it supports has a longer flange distance than the EOS system, then that's great; because then Canon can use .5x wide-converters mounted between the lens mount and the EOS lens to adapt the lens for the MF camera.
Impossible, a wide-converter inherently requires a shorter flange distance than is native to the lens (unless someone knows differently).  That is the reason that the Metabones uses only SLR lenses with only mirrorless cameras (not APS DSLR cameras).

Also, there are multiple digital medium format sizes:

44 x 33mm (Pentax 645D, Hasselblad - multiple, Mamiya Aptus 8 & Credo 40)
45 x 30 mm (Leica S2)
48 x 36 mm (Mamiya Aptus 5 & 7)
49.1 x 36.7 mm (Hasselblad - multiple)
53.7 x 40.2 mm (Hasselblad H4D-60, Mamiya Aptus 12 & Credo 60 & 80)
56 x 36 mm (Mamiya Aptus 10)
56 x 41.5 mm - Film '645' Format
70 x 56 mm - Film '6x7' format

Essentially, digital has not yet quite made it to the medium formats everyone refers to from the film days.  The Pentax 645D doesn't have nearly the same advantage over FF cameras as 645 film did over 35mm.

Size and weight comparison:

Canon 1D X             Canon 5D Mark III        Leica S2
1540g                      950g                            1410 g
158 x 163 x 84 mm  152 x 116 x 76 mm      160 x 120 x 80 mm

So the Leica S2 is slightly larger than the 5D Mark III (although almost 50% heavier), and lighter than the 1D X (and much smaller).  Medium format doesn't have to be huge like a 120/220 camera as Leica has shown (although, again the sensor is smaller and can therefore have a smaller mirror and a shorter flange distance than the film formats).

71
Lenses / Re: Best Filters for 24-105 f/4
« on: August 09, 2013, 02:34:45 PM »
I would also say any of the B+W MRC filters (XS Pro for UWA, and F-Pro for all others).  I've had a couple Hoya HMC and S-HMC lenses, and they are damned near impossible to clean off without leaving streaks.  UV or Clear are both equally good for a protection filter (get whichever is cheaper).  A CPL is also a must, but I have seen way too many people who just leave CPLs on all the time.  Take the time to learn how CPLs affect the image and only use it when you need it.  I've seen a bunch of people with Rebel+kit walking around at weddings, museums, etc with a CPL mounted in dark, indoor conditions.  I've also seen wedding pictures and landscapes that absolutely should have used a CPL (reflections from eyeglasses obscuring eyes and water reflections, respectively) and would have resulted in substantially better photographs.

ND filters are also very useful, however I have not used them often, so I'll refrain from giving advice.

72
Canon General / Re: You know, sometimes, when one is tired...
« on: August 08, 2013, 04:46:23 PM »
brain fart

aaand I've learned something new today  :)

what a great forum this is... and, as it turns out, not only for photo-ish things but also for new phrases and other bits of English  :)
thanks, have a nice day
Pretty common expression in American English (especially the midwest).  I doubt it's a very universal phrase in all English-speaking areas.

73
Canon General / Re: You know, sometimes, when one is tired...
« on: August 06, 2013, 12:48:42 PM »
When I told this story to a friend he told me that once he had taken an extender with him  thinking he was taking a teleconverter!

What's the difference?
Sorry , I meant to write macro extender!
I once bought on eBay a Canon EF12 Extension tube (listed as such), but what the seller didn't realize was that it was attached to a Canon 1.4x Teleconverter wrapped in black gaff tape.  Picked it up for a song, sold the 1.4x (since I don't have a compatible lens) and kept the EF12 for free with cash in pocket.

Also bought a 35mm f/2.0 for $177 shipped in mint condition, since the seller used a straight-on shot of the front element and listed it as an 'FD' lens.  Had he used an isometric view of the lens, it probably would have sold for more since other buyers would have noticed it was an EF lens instead.  Used it for a year and a half and sold it a week ago via Craigslist for $230 with hood.  Not a bad rental rate.

I've bought quite a few items from listings created by sellers that were likely a bit tired.

74
Canon General / Re: You know, sometimes, when one is tired...
« on: August 05, 2013, 10:50:25 AM »
My most common mistake is forgetting a memory card in my computer.  Luckily, I have bought extras that do nothing but travel in the tiny card pockets in my Lowepro bag.  The one time this didn't work was when the only extra I had in the bag was a card with known problems and need to be reformatted regularly.  The card seised up and did not show any contents at the very beginning of the wedding reception for a good friend, no more pictures were taken that night, but the pictures that were taken were later recovered when I got back home.  The card has since been RMA'd and two additional cards were purchased, tested and used as available backup cards.

75
Canon General / Re: People that don't shoot in manual...
« on: August 01, 2013, 05:29:01 PM »
...I kinda go with what I heard Syl Arena say, that he only uses ETTL when the distance between the lens and the subject are moving....

With all due respect to Syl Arena, Joe McNally, Strobist and all the other advocates of manual flash, they have thousands upon thousands of hours of experience working with strobes and know them inside and out. While it's a good exercise to try to learn manual controls, to me it's a little like the original topic of this thread: if a tool is available that makes your life easier, why not use it?

If I live long enough, I may someday have enough experience to confidently set my speedlights on full manual. But, in the meantime, I figure I paid for Canon's top line strobes so I might as well take advantage of the technology they offer.  As so many others have said about the original topic of this thread: it's about the results, not about how you got there.
Bravo.  I don't think I'll ever have enough time to confidently and efficiently set up stobes in manual mode.  I'm sure I could figure it out using tables, trial-and-error and other methods, but I don't do it every day (nor do I think I ever will), so there is no advantage to manual flash when I can just set up camera in manual mode, and play around with ISO, shutter speed and FEC and get similar results in about the same (or less) amount of time.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 27